Brad,
below you touch on both distinct identity and market potential. Both
issues have been raised by other members of this group during the ad hoc
conf call, so it is worth reviewing the arguments again on this
reflector. For clarity I am starting two email threads to discuss the
two points.
**Broad Market Potential**
> During the study group phase, HSSG was told bandwidth demand
> at the network aggregation points was outpacing the servers.
> This was part of the basis for justifying the broad market
> potential of 100G. The addition of 40G as a network
> aggregator and showing it has greater market potential than
> the 100G, 10 km SMF could call into question whether or not
> the task force's current objectives truly satisfy broad
> market potential.
As you say 40G SMF has a greater market potential than 100G. The reason
lies in the radically different economics of the two technologies. The
gap between the two is such that users who *don't need* the bandwidth
will not upgrade from 10G to 100G anyway. Those who *do need* will be
viewing the cost/performance tradeoffs with different lenses.
This is what is happening with the 1G to 10G transition. Why should not
happen again between 10G and 100G?
The presence of a 40G technology riding the 10G technology cost curve
will simply enable a market which for 100G is not there anyway.
By analogy if I decide to get in the market for a faster car, I won't
probably go for a Ferrari, but I might settle for a Ford Mustang. Ford
releasing a new Mustang model does not diminish the market potential of
Ferraris.
And if Mustangs did not exist, you would not sell more Ferraris anyway.
Again the whole point here is around cost. Hadn't we had such a vast gap
between 40G and 100G SMF, there would be no reason to have 40G SMF.
40G is truly an incremental opportunity for the entire 802.3ba project
and as a result by adding 40G SMF the overall broad market potential
results *greatly* augmented.
Material was presented yesterday during the ad hoc call that supports
this thesis. If there is disagreement on the conclusions I would like to
understand the specifics of the concern.
Thanks,
Alessandro
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Booth [mailto:bbooth@AMCC.COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:08 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
>
> Alessandro,
>
> There are number of people who over the past 8-9 months have
> worked with press and analysts to help them understand the
> difference between 40G and 100G as they relate to the server
> market and network aggregation market, respectively.
>
> The overlap in reaches with 40G and 100G were agreed upon
> because within a data center the server-to-switch reach would
> be the same as the switch-to-switch reach. The data center
> would see a mix of the two markets; therefore, two speeds
> with equal reaches.
>
> The 40G, 10 km SMF reach objective modifies the
> differentiator used to distinguish 40G as having a server
> focus. It changes 40G to also be in the network aggregation market.
>
> During the study group phase, HSSG was told bandwidth demand
> at the network aggregation points was outpacing the servers.
> This was part of the basis for justifying the broad market
> potential of 100G. The addition of 40G as a network
> aggregator and showing it has greater market potential than
> the 100G, 10 km SMF could call into question whether or not
> the task force's current objectives truly satisfy broad
> market potential.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Barbieri (abarbier) [mailto:abarbier@CISCO.COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:31 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
>
> Dan,
> customers will have two solutions for copper as well as OM-3
> fiber. And I can't see why having two solutions for SMF too
> would make things any different.
>
> How will they pick one? Based on a tradeoff of cost and need.
> The decision to end users will be absolutely simplified by
> the economics at work here: it has been pointed out that a
> 100G transceiver on SMF could cost ~8-12x 40G SMF
> (http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/AdHoc/40GSMF/cole_40_02_02
08.pdf) or ~40-50X 10GBASE-LR in 2010 >
(http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/AdHoc/40GSMF/carter_40_01_
> 0208.pdf).
>
> Users who *need* the bandwidth are not going to stop at 40G,
> those who *don't need* the bandwidth (Tier2/3) will not adopt
> 100G SMF anyway, but they would find 40G a better balance
> between cost and need.
>
> > we would see that
> > customer base split between 40G and 100G with very small
> incremental
> > volume gained by the addition of 40G.
>
> 40G is absolutely incremental as it is a path to upgrade 10G
> links for the more cost driven part of the market. Hadn't we
> had 40G, most users would have continued happily with nx10G links.
>
> The argument that users will get confused by two solutions is
> a non issue IMHO. The different economics of 40G SMF and 100G
> SMF will drive behaviors very clearly.
>
> Alessandro
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dove, Dan [mailto:dan.dove@HP.COM]
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:30 AM
> > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
> >
> > Howard,
> >
> > You said " Customers tend to be pretty smart people. They know what
> > they need, they know how to calculate cost/performance ratios, and
> > they know how to pick the right data rate for each of the links in
> > their networks." and I fully agree with you, but your point
> does not
> > address the fact that customers for 100G 10km LANs would find
> > themselves with two solutions now rather than one. These
> two solutions
>
> > would be sufficiently similar in performance, and perhaps a
> > significant difference in cost, that we would see that
> customer base
> > split between 40G and 100G with very small incremental
> volume gained
> > by the addition of 40G.
> >
> > If this is true, we have doubled the amount of work to yield a
> > fractional increase in market growth.
> >
> > In addition, those customers who go for the 40G solution
> because its
> > available sooner or lower in cost will find themselves quickly in a
> > state where they need 100G, thus they have bought a
> technology without
>
> > the legs that are normally desired for backbone links.
> >
> > Now, I don't think my points, by themselves, are sufficiently
> > persuasive to oppose a 40G-10km standard, but wanted to put
> them onto
> > the table. We are certainly stepping away from some of the
> supporting
> > arguments made when 40G and 100G were initially approved and should
> > re-evaluate the entire justification before treading too
> far down this
>
> > path.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:38 PM
> > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
> >
> >
> >
> > The study group, the working group, and the EC all agreed
> that broad
> > market potential had been demonstrated for both 40 G and 100 G. The
> > broad market potential for 100 G was based, in no small
> part, on the
> > needs of very vocal and prominent individuals representing
> end users
> > of the technology. These individuals made it clear that 40
> G was not
> > sufficient for their needs. I don't think that the
> inclusion of a new
> > objective for 40 G operation on 10 km of single mode fiber
> will change
>
> > their view in the slightest.
> > They need 100 G, and 40 G in any form simply won't satisfy their
> > needs.
> >
> > I think that this is well captured in the approved response to the
> > broad market potential criterion.
> >
> > What has changed is that a new set of individuals are
> asking for 40 G
> > on 10 km of single mode fiber because they believe it will satisfy
> > their needs. They aren't contradicting the people who want
> 100 G. They
>
> > are simply saying that their needs are different.
> >
> > Customers tend to be pretty smart people. They know what they need,
> > they know how to calculate cost/performance ratios, and
> they know how
> > to pick the right data rate for each of the links in their networks.
> > We haven't had any problem with Distinct Identity over the last 16
> > years that we have been cranking up the operating speed of Ethernet.
> > Customers know when to use 10 Mb/s, 100 Mb/s, 1000 Mb/s and
> 10 Gb/s.
> > They will be able to draw the same distinction between 40
> Gb/s and 100
>
> > Gb/s, regardless of what media types are supported.
> >
> > I think it would be a terrible idea to limit the link span for 40 G
> > operation on single mode fiber to 2 km. Customers have been
> designing
> > around a maximum link span of 10 km (and the associated channel
> > insertion
> > loss) for at least the last decade. It would be wrong to
> arbitrarily
> > limit the span of 40 G to 2 km in an attempt to provide unnecessary
> > differentiation.
> >
> > Howard Frazier
> > Broadcom Corporation
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brad Booth [mailto:bbooth@AMCC.COM]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:00 PM
> > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > I agree that this does change things up. 40G was positioned as a
> > server interconnect, and 100G as the network interconnect. The
> > overlap with an existing 100G objective blurs the distinct identity
> > making it hard to differentiate the broad market potential
> for either
> > objective.
> >
> > If the 40G SMF option was being targeted at a 2 km reach,
> that would
> > make sense considering that's a typical campus area network. If
> > someone then wanted to use that to do 10 km, that would be their
> > option and considered outside the scope of the standard.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brad
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Swanson, Steven E [mailto:SwansonSE@CORNING.COM]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:08 PM
> > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
> >
> > Howard etal,
> >
> > I could agree that this proposal may address what needs to
> change in
> > our response to the Economic Feasibility criterion to add
> the 10km SMF
>
> > objective at 40G. However, I think this change goes against
> the basis
> > of the decision that we took in July 2007 for considering
> 40G in the
> > first place, i.e., segmenting the server and computing applications
> > from the network aggregation applications. Now the network
> aggregation
>
> > space includes two solutions - 40G and 100G. This seems to place a
> > burden on us to also re-evaluate Distinct Identity
> criterion and calls
>
> > into question the Broad Market Potential criterion. In
> reviewing some
> > of the presentations leading up to our decision to include
> 40G, I note
>
> > some of the concerns expressed then that I think are now back on the
> > table:
> >
> > * "Fragmentation of R&D efforts (lack of critical
> mass on either
> > 40G or 100G initially) - two rates will ultimately force
> component and
>
> > equipment vendors to support BOTH."
> > * "Requires the industry to develop 2 x MACs, 2 x PCS
> chips, 2 x
> > PMA (serdes) chips, 2 x N PMDs"
> > * "Industry confusion on "application versus rate" - Distinct
> > Identity does not just mean "Is there anything else exactly like
> > this?"
> > but also "Is there sufficient difference between this and available
> > alternatives to justify the effort?"
> > * "Interoperability concerns (some vendors elect to
> > implement 40G
> > initially, whereas others implement 100G)"
> > * "Do we now have a triple rate required (40G LAN, 40G
> > WAN, 100G)
> > since 40G SMF solutions already exist?"
> >
> > I do not have any proposed changes at this point regarding
> the BMP or
> > DI criterion but wanted to express an opinion that these criterion
> > should be re-evaluated. If others do not share that view,
> then on we
> > go.
> >
> > Steve Swanson
> > Corning Incorporated
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@BROADCOM.COM]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:21 PM
> > To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [802.3BA] 5 Criteria mod to support 40 G on SMF
> >
> > Dear members of the IEEE 802.3ba Task Force,
> >
> > I have reviewed our approved set of 5 Criteria responses
> >
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/PAR/HSSG_5C_0707.pdf
> >
> > looking for any material that will need to be changed in
> the event we
> > adopt an objective to support 40 Gb/s operation on 10 km of single
> > mode fiber. In my opinion, the responses will remain valid and
> > complete, with one exception.
> >
> > On page 6 of the above referenced file, in our response to the
> > Economic Feasibility criterion, we state:
> >
> > Presentations indicate that for the server market and
> > computing applications the optimized rate to provide
> > the best balance of performance and cost is 40 Gb/s.
> > For the network aggregation market and core networking
> > applications, the optimized rate offering the best
> > balance of performance and cost is 100 Gb/s.
> >
> > If we adopt a 40 Gb/s SMF objective, then this response should be
> > modified along the lines of:
> >
> > Presentations indicate that for the server market,
> > computing applications and some cost-sensitive
> > aggregation applications, the optimized rate to provide
> > the best balance of performance and cost is 40 Gb/s.
> > For the network aggregation market and core networking
> > applications, the optimized rate offering the best
> > balance of performance and cost is 100 Gb/s.
> >
> > The change being the insertion of the words "some cost-sensitive
> > aggregation applications" in the first sentence.
> >
> > I think that our previously approved responses for Broad Market
> > Potential, Compatibility, Distinct Identity, and Technical
> Feasibility
>
> > will not require any change in the event that we adopt an objective
> > for 40 Gb/s operation on SMF. I think that the proponents
> of the new
> > objective will be able to readily demonstrate this.
> >
> > If you think I have over looked something else that might
> need to be
> > changed, please speak up, and please provide a proposed change.
> >
> > Howard Frazier
> > Broadcom Corporation
> >
>